Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30344806›Full record

ArticleGastroenterology research2018

Efficacy of Gastric Electrical Stimulation for Gastroparesis: US/European Comparison.

Jordan Burlen, Matt Runnels, Minesh Mehta, Stina Andersson, Philippe Ducrotte, Guillaume Gourcerol, Greger Lindberg, Greg Fullarton, Hasse Abrahamsson, Amar Al-Juburi and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gastroenterology research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Gastric Electrical Stimulation: Overview and Summary.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The Surgeon's Role in Gastric Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Gastroparesis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Jordan BurlenUniversity of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Matt RunnelsGastrodocs.net, Jackson, MS, USA.
Minesh MehtaUniversity of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Stina AnderssonUniversity of Goteborg, Sweden.
Philippe DucrotteRouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.
Guillaume GourcerolRouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.
Greger LindbergKarolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Greg FullartonUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Hasse AbrahamssonUniversity of Goteborg, Sweden.
Amar Al-JuburiUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Chris LahrMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Hani RashedUniversity of Tennessee, Memphis, TN, USA.
Thomas AbellUniversity of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGastric electrical stimulation (GES) is used in both the US and Europe, but little research has investigated the demographics of gastroparesis patients receiving GES by geographic location.

methodsWe compared data from 380 patients, 296 female and 84 males, mean age 42 years, 246 idiopathic (ID), 107 diabetic (DM), and 27 post-surgical (PS). The statistical significance was calculated by Chi-square test and a P-value obtained for ID, DM, and PS. The statistical significance was calculated by Fischer exact test and a P-value obtained comparing male vs. female.

resultsEuropean centers had 61 GES patients compared to 319 from the US. In Europe, 100% of patients had gastric emptying test (GET) values available; in the US, it was 75% of patients. European centers had more DM patients (59%) than the US (22%), and a smaller proportion of ID patients (25%) than the US (72%). There was a statistical difference between the causes of gastroparesis in the patients receiving GES (P-value < 0.00001). There was also significant difference in the gender of the patients receiving GES, with a greater proportion of women in the US (P value = 0.0023).

conclusionsComparing GES in US vs. Europe demonstrated significant differences in gastroparesis demographics and percentage of patients with GET data. After analyzing the previously discussed results and reviewing recent updates in evidence-based medicine guidelines, the discrepancy and variance in patient populations in the US and Europe emphasizes the need for a database that allows better analysis and treatment of gastroparesis patients worldwide including stimulation therapies.

Indexed as

DiabetesGastric electrical stimulationGastroparesisHealth deliveryNausea and vomiting

Identifiers

PMID30344806
PMCPMC6188037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.